|
Science:
Who Needs It?
At our school all students are required to take a
minimum of six courses in the natural sciences: three in the
biological sciences and three in the physical sciences,
regardless of the student's major. Students majoring in the
humanities often have to struggle to get through these
demanding courses, and their grade-point averages usually
suffer as a result. It has been suggested that the
requirements be modified, reducing the number of natural
science courses required so that students can take more
courses directly related to their majors. As a humanities
major, I admit this would make college life a lot easier for
me, but I still oppose the measure because natural science
courses provide us with a crucial part of our education.
Students majoring in the humanities usually object
to taking such science courses because they claim the courses
are irrelevant to their majors. “What good will physics do
me when I'm teaching Spanish?” a friend of mine asked. It's
true that physics, chemistry, biology, and the like may not
have a direct application to most careers in the humanities,
but this objection ignores one of the key issues of a
university education. A university is not simply a training
facility; it is an institution of higher learning where
students are educated, not merely trained. Even the term
university implies that it's a place to obtain a general
knowledge base; a university education means the student has
been educated in many subjects. Since part of our universal
knowledge is science, it is and logically should be a part of the university curriculum.
Humanities students might accept this argument and
agree that they should take some natural science, but
not as many courses as are now required. They might suggest a
one-semester course in biological science and a one-semester
course in physical science, along with perhaps one semester of
math for non-majors. This, they argue, would expose them
sufficiently to the universe of science. If the point of a
university education were merely to expose students to a
variety of subjects, then I might agree. But a university
education implies more than mere exposure. After all, people
can be exposed to subjects by watching television. Again, the
purpose of going to a university is to get an education. What
does that mean? It means more than just training and
exposure; it means that students learn enough to become
critical thinkers in the various disciplines. It means that
they should gain enough understanding of the sciences,
humanities, social sciences, and the arts to be able to
discuss issues in these areas intelligently and to be able to
question other people's views rather than just accept what
people tell them.
One or two semesters of
general science cannot sufficiently educate students in this
field. What one learns in natural science courses is more than
mere factual information. One learns to think critically, to
approach problems logically, to use reasoning. And this takes
time. It takes work. It takes studying different areas of
science and applying the general principles in laboratory
situations.
Developing a critical ability in science is important, but
why? In addition to providing the student with a universe of
knowledge, an understanding of science is vital in our highly
technological society. We are all confronted with issues
involving nuclear waste, chemical pollutants, medical
advances, exploration in space, and so forth. In order to make
intelligent decisions---in fact, even to be involved in the
decision-making process---people need to have an understanding
of these issues that goes beyond mere ”exposure.”
Otherwise, the uneducated become mere puppets who, out of
ignorance, can but nod in agreement with anyone who professes
expertise.
Finally, I contend that science courses do have relevance to
the humanities, and this is through the critical thinking
approach of the scientific method. The scientific method is an
approach to solving problems, an approach that has been tried
and proven. It is an approach that demands that the researcher
obtain support for his or her hypotheses. Courses in the
humanities demand critical thinking as well. Students of
literature must support their interpretations with
“evidence” from the literary work; art majors must test
their ideas---or hypotheses---by experimenting and drawing
conclusions. True, in these fields one does not follow the
formal scientific method, but it is the practice with that way
of thinking that can benefit students in other fields.
Science courses, then, provide us not only with
knowledge that is crucial for intelligent functioning in our
society, but they also provide us with the opportunity to
develop our critical, logical reasoning skills. Although these
courses are difficult for the nonscience majors, they are well
worth the effort. The knowledge and thinking skills gained
from these courses make us less vulnerable to charlatans and
politicians as we more intelligently and critically evaluate
the propositions offered to us.
|
你現在想：